1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-04569
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the government’s financial considerations security concern.
Clearance is granted.
On March 11, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F, financial considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on April 13, 2009, admitting all of the allegations.
He requested a hearing, and the case was assigned to me on May 27, 2009. On June
12, 2009, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for July 7, 2009. The
hearing was conducted as scheduled. I received five government exhibits, seven
ISCR Case No. 03-07826 (App. Board, June 17, 2005) at 3.1
2
Applicant exhibits, and Applicant’s testimony. The transcript was received on July 15,
2009.
Preliminary Rulings
I. SOR subparagraphs 1.i through 1.k, 1.u, and 1.v allege Applicant owes debts
to unidentified medical providers. These allegations are overbroad because they do not
identify specific creditors. Although an SOR does not have to satisfy the strict
requirements of a criminal indictment, it must still place an applicant on adequate notice
of the allegations so that he or she may have a reasonable opportunity to respond and
prepare a defense.  The aforementioned SOR allegations do not meet this threshold;1
therefore, I conclude that they are not justiciable.
II. The parties stipulated that Applicant satisfied the debts listed in SOR
subparagraphs 1.f and 1.o (Tr. 10). Accordingly, I resolve these subparagraphs in his
favor.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 26-year-old single man. He graduated from high school in 2002
and earned an associate’s degree in homeland security and criminal justice in 2006 (Tr.
22; Exhibit 1 at 5). He has worked as a security guard for the past three and a half years
(Tr. 23). Applicant’s supervisor characterizes him as “a conscientious and valued
employee” (Exhibit C). 
Shortly after graduating from high school in 2002, Applicant was in a serious car
accident (Tr. 23-24). His mother’s health insurance policy, which had covered him
during childhood, did not provide coverage to dependents upon graduating from high
school, and Applicant’s employment did not provide health insurance benefits (Tr. 23).
Consequently, Applicant was unable to pay his medical bills, and soon began struggling
to stay current on all of his bills. 
By early 2009, Applicant had accrued approximately $15,000 of delinquent debt,
including, among other things, a $1,224 credit card balance (SOR subparagraph 1.a), a
$5,698 deficiency remaining from a repossessed car (SOR subparagraph 1.b), and
$3,500 in medical expenses stemming from the car accident (SOR subparagraphs 1.f,
1.g, 1.h, 1.n, and 1.p - 1.r). In April 2009, Applicant consulted a credit counselor who
help him organize a payment plan (Exhibit G; Tr. 36). Under the plan, Applicant pays
$216 monthly, deducted automatically from his pay, to the credit counseling agency (Id.;
Tr. 24). The credit counseling agency then distributes portions of Applicant’s monthly
payment to the individual creditors. 
3
Currently, the plan includes $7,061 of delinquent debt. All of the delinquencies
except SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.l, and 1.w are included in the plan. The debt
listed in SOR subparagraph 1.w, in the amount of $668, constitutes education-related
expenses (Answer, Attachment 3). Applicant contacted this creditor in March 2009, one
month before he consulted the credit counselor, and organized a payment plan (Id.).
Since then he has been making $97 monthly payments (Id.). 
SOR subparagraph 1.l is an alleged debt owed to a bank for delinquent overdraft
protection fees (Exhibit B at 10). Applicant disputed it with the help of his credit
counselor (Exhibit B at 9). The credit reporting agency then conducted an investigation,
and concluded this debt was not Applicant’s responsibility (Id). The creditor then closed
the account (Id. at 10).
Applicant did not address why the debt repayment plan does not include the
debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b, which collectively total approximately
$7,000. He did note, however, that the credit counselor will add more debts to the plan
(Tr. 36). He anticipates the debts listed in the plan will be satisfied by the end of 2011.
Applicant’s debt management counselor also helped him develop a budget
(Exhibit G at 3). After paying his expenses and setting aside money for savings,
Applicant has approximately $1,500 of remaining monthly income (Exhibit G at 2-3; Tr.
38). He maintains a checking account balance of approximately $200 and a savings
account balance of approximately $100 (Tr. 43).
Applicant has an $8,000 balance remaining on his student loans (Tr. 27). He has
made these payments timely since finishing school.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 
4
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The and
regulations, all of which can raise questions about applicant has the ultimate burden of
persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information” (AG ¶ 18). Applicant’s history of financial problems
triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and
19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”
Applicant’s financial problems began shortly after graduating from high school
when a serious car accident triggered medical bills that he could not afford to pay. Since
then, Applicant has consulted a credit counselor, developed a budget, and begun
satisfying his delinquencies. Payments to the credit counseling agency are deducted
automatically from Applicant’s pay. I was concerned that the payment plan does not
include two of the largest debts listed in the SOR. However, he has ample after-
expense monthly income to begin satisfying these debts once the credit counseling
agency adds them to the plan. AG ¶¶ 20(b), “the conditions that resulted in the financial
problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances,” AG 20(c) “the person has
received, or is receiving counseling for the problem, and/or there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved, or is under control,” and 20(d), “the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” apply.
Applicant successfully disputed the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.l, and
provided a letter from the creditor that indicates the account has been closed. AG ¶
20(e), “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due
debt which is the cause of the problem, and provides documented proof to substantiate
the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” applies.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
5
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Applicant’s financial delinquencies did not accrue because of extravagant
spending. Instead, they accrued because of his difficulty in paying medical expenses he
incurred after experiencing a serious car accident shortly after graduating from high
school. Since then, Applicant contacted a credit counselor, organized his bills, and
began satisfying them through a payment plan. The discipline he demonstrated in taking
these steps was particularly impressive given his youth.
Because the plan currently does not include two bills totalling approximately
$7,000, Applicant’s expectation that he will satisfy the delinquencies by 2011 is overly
optimistic. He has ample after-expense, monthly income to handle the eventual
inclusion of these bills into his debt management plan. Consequently, although he may
not completely satisfy these delinquencies by the end of 2011, he clearly has
demonstrated that his finances are under control. I conclude the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence is minimal.
Applicant has worked for a defense contractor for the past two years, earning the
respect of his supervisor and coworkers. Upon considering the relevant disqualifying
and mitigating conditions in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude
Applicant has mitigated the security concern. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.w: For Applicant
6
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge